JUDGMENT

1. These are two connected appeals arising out of the same judgment. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the village. The first defendant was the Lambardar. The first defendant granted a perpetual lease of 20 bighas of laud to the second defendant Kali Din, who is the appellant before us. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Civil Court for the cancellation of this lease on the ground that it was beyond the powers of the Lambardar to execute. He also sued for the ejectment of the defendant from 5 bighas of laud which he, the plaintiff, claimed as his khudkasht. The defendant pleaded that the lease was a good and valid lease. His contention was that not only was it within the power of the Lambardar but that it was executed with the consent of all the co-sharers, This was in substance a plea that the defendant was the tenant of the whole proprietary body including the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court could have, u/s 202 of the Tenancy Act, directed the defendant to file a suit in the Revenue Court within three months to establish the tenancy which he set up. It is true that no plea to this effect was taken in the written statement, the defendant contending ins